Thursday, May 31, 2012

What I believe the US should do in Syria

The continuing bloodshed in Syria is terrible. I believe that greater, more aggressive action is needed on the part of the international community. I also believe that Europe must learn that this situation is another example of why they must spend more on defense.

Having said this, I
will break my reasoning into two considerations - the strategic utility of a non-US Military rooted intervention and how such an intervention could be implemented effectively.

Regarding
a prospective military intervention, my primary concern is that direct US
Military intervention in Syria
would pose substantial risks. A major point here is in the fact that much of Syria is
protected by a comparatively advanced air defense system. This is a system that’s
defeat would require a substantial air campaign on the part of the United States –
a campaign that would risk both Syrian civilians and American flight crews. Another
concern is the relative competence of the Syrian armed forces in
comparison to those of Gaddafi. Faced with direct US Military intervention,
these units might dramatically escalate their campaign against Syrian
civilians. These units would also be likely to pose a greater threat to US
interests in the region. I also worry that a military
intervention would require a substantial re-direction of resources away from
other critical US Military missions, while simultaneously risking Iranian escalation. In such a situation, the US would be left stretched and our regional priorities would be left highly vulnerable. Critically, Afghanistan
is a core US
national security priority and requires the continued focus of our national
power.

My
argument instead is that the US
should adopt a strategy that combines increased diplomatic pressure on Assad, Iran
and Hizballah AND China and Russia, with physical US
support to Syrian rebel elements. The US should make clear to the Chinese
and Russian leadership that we regard their continued support for Assad with
major discontent. Consequently, the US
should be ready to take escalatory diplomatic reprisals if China and Russia fail to adapt their position.
To be blunt, the US must
ultimately be prepared to withdraw our ambassadors to Beijing and Moscow. If we truly value human
rights, we must be willing to stand up with purpose. Alongside diplomatic
action, I believe that the US
should provide logistical support (weapons money, tools, intelligence support etc) to
identified rebel elements. This support should be given in concert with
European and other regional partner states, so as to maximize support
efficiency and credibility, while also minimizing the risk of this 'support' entering the hands
of Islamist extremists (a risk that cannot be totally eliminated). The
CIA Special Activities Division is well suited to such a task.

Ultimately, I believe that this balanced approach would dramatically increase pressure
on Assad while mitigating the negative risks of an open military
intervention. Such action would also serve to increase pressure on the Lebanese Hizballah, via highlighting the hypocrisy of Hizballah's continued
support for the Assad regime. It is in this way that the Assad-Iran-Hizballah alliance
could be weakened and Assad's grip on power could be slowly but systematically degraded.